Madras HC Remands Trader’s GST Case For Fresh Hearing On 25% Deposit, Says Officers Should Explore Other Service Modes After Unanswered Portal Notices

In brief

The question

1. Whether the impugned assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was afforded.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 8 December 2025 and remanding the matter, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.

It also directed

The petitioner must file objections and supporting documents within three weeks after payment, after which the respondent must give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The bank attachment was to be lifted, and the bank directed to defreeze the account upon production of proof of payment and a copy of the order.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an order dated 8 December 2025 under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the consequential summary in Form GST DRC-07.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The notices and communications had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said he was unaware of them and had not been furnished the show-cause notice.

p. 2 · ¶ 3 · p. 3 · ¶ 7

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was made.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

The petitioner sought remand and undertook to pay 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the impugned assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was afforded.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–5 · p. 3 · ¶ 7

ii.2. Whether, in the circumstances, the matter should be remanded subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax and further procedural directions.

p. 3 · ¶ 5, 9–10

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other authorised modes.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9

The Court stated that when a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should consider using another available mode—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective, rather than treating repeated portal uploads as an adequate practical opportunity to respond.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing before the adverse order as a relevant procedural defect in this case.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 5, 7

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169

04Reasoning

Although portal service was legally sufficient, the Court considered that the petitioner’s lack of response should have prompted the officer to explore other modes of service under Section 169(1), particularly RPAD; otherwise, service risked becoming an empty formality.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9

The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been given.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

In light of these circumstances and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on conditions.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10